investing in a future that works: preparing detroit's...

Investing In A Future That Works:

Preparing Detroit's Young Talent for the Dynamic World of Work

Prepared By:

City Connect Detroit

Authored By:


Corporation for a Skilled Workforce

University of Michigan

August 2011

of 42

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

….

2

I. Executive Summary…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3

II. Supply and Demand of Young Talent………..……...………………………………………………………………… 4

III. Barriers to Youth Employment in Detroit.....……………………………………………………………………… 13

IV. Best Practices in Youth Employment Supports.......……….…………………………………………………… 21

V. Recommendations……………………..……………………………………………………………………………………… 34

VI. Conclusions……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 36

VII. Design Team Members……………………………...…………………………………………………………………… 37

VIII. Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 38

of 42

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

City Connect Detroit acknowledges the many caring and committed individuals who

contributed to the design and development of this report. We would especially like to thank our

co-authors from the University of Michigan and the Corporation for a Skilled Workforce;

contributors from the Detroit Youth Employment Consortium and the Detroit Workforce

Development Board; the many individuals and faith- and community-based organizations that

participated in interviews and listening sessions related to this work; and allies at local

foundations, corporations, and government agencies. We are also grateful to the New Economy

Initiative, which funded development of this report.

of 42

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Metro Detroit’s economy faces a labor shortage in coming years, as adult workers retire in large

numbers and employers in new economy industries grow and expand. The region can reduce

this challenge by ensuring that it has an efficient and effective workforce preparation system,

which funnels employment ready youth to the region’s talent-hungry employers.

There are many barriers to youth workforce preparation that similar communities across the

U.S. are working to address. This region’s peers are engaged in a myriad of practices with

potential for replication in Detroit, including development of coordinated systems, effective

strategies for employer engagement, and other emerging approaches.

This report examines demand for youth-focused workforce preparation, the barriers that inhibit

its success, and best practices from around the nation. It concludes with a series of

recommendations for improving Detroit’s workforce preparation system. Among the findings of

this analysis are that Detroit’s system can be most rapidly enhanced with investment in:

• Better coordination of the workforce preparation system

• Wider use of youth assessment tools

• More robust evaluation and feedback mechanisms

• Capacity building

• Expanded use of evidence-based practices

The findings in this report are the result of a community collaborative project facilitated by City

Connect Detroit, in close partnership with the Corporation for a Skilled Workforce and the

University of Michigan. Its findings are particularly relevant for the people and organizations of

metro Detroit, but are likely to resonate in markets across the nation, particularly those

experiencing challenges similar to those confronting metro Detroit.

of 42

II. SUPPLY AND DEMAND OF YOUNG TALENT

Southeast Michigan’s labor market faces substantial gaps in alignment: the region’s youth

population is shrinking and the adult population is retiring in large numbers. Preparing and

retaining the region’s future workforce can help mitigate the economic impact of future labor

shortages and create new opportunities for growth and prosperity.

This need comes at a time when young

Detroiters face barriers to employment. Access

to quality education, income levels, and racial

disparities all factor into low employment

levels. Failure to remove barriers to

employment could harm the region’s long-term

economic growth, if the next generation of

workers are unprepared to enter the

workforce. Without action, the region faces a

situation where its future workforce (supply)

does not meet the needs and expectations of

its employers (demand).

Detroit Youth Employment in Context

Today’s youth are increasingly absent the labor market and the skill-building experiences that

participation in it provides young workers. In June 2010, only 28.6 percent of the nation’s teens

were employed, representing a post World War II low. In Detroit, this steady decline has

resulted in dire employment conditions for the city’s 121,782 youth ages 16-24 (American

Community Survey, 2009). While unemployment rates for youth are typically well-above those

of the general population, rates in Detroit are more than double the national average. The

following chart provides a comparison between youth employment in Detroit and the nation.

Detroit’s Ten Largest Employers (2009)

Rank Organization Employees

1 Detroit Public Schools 13,750

2 City of Detroit 13,187

3 Detroit Medical Center 10,499

4 Henry Ford Health System 8,502

5 U.S. Government 6,335

6 Blue Cross Blue Shield 6,000

7 Wayne State University 5,019

8 State of Michigan 4,910

9 General Motors 4,652

10 Chrysler Corporation 4,517

Source: Detroit Economic Growth Corporation

of 42

Detroit Youth Employment Data

Total In labor force (%) Employed (5%) Unemployed (%)

Detroit Detroit U.S. Detroit U.S. Detroit U.S.

Population over 16 years 689,282 55 65 43 60 22 7

Population 16-19 years 61,858 36 44 17 34 53 23

Population 20-24 years 59,924 67 75 45 65 33 12

Source: ACS 2005-2009 5 year estimates

Detroit’s African American population is disproportionately affected by the city’s high

unemployment. The largest racial group in Detroit, African Americans comprise 77 percent of

the city’s population, but 83 percent of its unemployed. The same dynamic holds for Detroit’s

youth population; black youth are disproportionately unemployed compared to other

demographic groups in the city. This challenge is not limited to Detroit, however; nationally,

only 15 of 100 African American teens holds a job. The employment rate is even worse for black

teens and young adults from low income households, with only 9 percent employment. More

than half of all black teens reside in families with less than $40,000 in household income (Sum,

2010).

Low levels of educational attainment are also hindering youth entrance to and preparation for

the workforce. High school dropouts on average experience an employment rate 22 percentage

points below those with a high-school diploma, 44 points below those with 1-3 years of

postsecondary schooling, and 41 points below those with a four-year college degree (Sum,

2009). Yet, just over one-fourth of Detroit students who entered the ninth grade in 2002

graduated four years later. Consequently, Detroit’s future workforce lags behind in national

benchmarks of educational attainment and the corresponding propensity to innovate,

compete, and secure and retain meaningful employment. The following chart provides a

comparison of educational attainment rates in Detroit and the nation.

of 42

Detroit Youth Educational Attainment Data

Total Male Female

Detroit U.S. Detroit U.S. Detroit U.S.

Population 18-24 87,729 29.8 m 43,064 15.4 m 44,665 14.5 m

Less than H.S. grad 29.10% 17.2% 34.10% 19.8% 24.40% 14.4%

High school grad/equiv 34.7% 32.0% 35.30% 34.4% 34.00% 29.4%

Some college or assoc 32.4% 41.9% 27.5% 38.6% 37.10% 45.3%

Bachelor’s + 3.8% 9.0% 3.10% 7.2% 4.40% 10.9%

Source: ACS 2005-2009 5 year estimates

A lack of work exposure and educational attainment for youth are problematic for many

reasons. Research suggests that early work experience leads to higher incidences of future

employment, higher earning potential, and a lower likelihood of various risk behaviors and

incarceration. In addition, work exposure can help youth make transitions from school to work;

help youth understand the positive connection between education level and job opportunities;

and help them acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to compete in the challenging job

market. Similar positive outcomes are attributed to youth with higher educational attainment.

Furthermore, research shows that young people who see a connection between their education

and jobs are more likely to attend school regularly, hold positive attitudes about school, and

stay enrolled, benefitting their future job prospects (Jekielek, et. al, 2002).

Generation Gap: Youth and the New Economy

With an aging population and the need to transition to a knowledge-based economy, many are

concerned about the long term economic consequences of an unprepared future workforce.

The retirement of 79 million baby boomers in the next several decades may present future

labor shortages (Kliesen, 2007). The first members of the baby boom generation began retiring

in 2008, and over the next two decades, an average of 10,000 individuals will retire per day. In

addition, population growth is expected to slow significantly during the next 20 years.

Currently, there are approximately five workers ages 20 to 64 for every retired person; by 2030,

when the last of the baby boomers retire, there may be only two workers per retiree (Pew,

2011).

of 42

This situation presents challenges for Southeast Michigan. From 2000 to 2008, the region

experienced significant demographic changes. The number of people in their prime working

years (ages 25-54) declined by 123,000 and the number of children, teens, and young adults

(ages 0-19) decreased by 70,000. When combined, these numbers represent a five percent

decline. In contrast, the number of individuals above age 65 grew by 22,000, or four percent

and the 55-64 age cohort grew by 170,000, a 42 percent increase. If this trend continues, by

2030, the region will face significant labor shortages (SEMCOG, 2010). The following chart from

the U.S. Census Bureau illustrates how southeast Michigan’s population has aged in the past

decade.

Demand: Detroit's Employer Base

The aging population concerns many businesses, labor associations, policymakers, and others

as they consider the implications of future talent and experience shortages.(Herman, et. al,

2002) New economy industries such as healthcare, advanced manufacturing, technology,

engineering, finance, energy, and education could have trouble attracting the talent necessary

to fill positions (Eisenburg, 2002). The following table provides data on projected employment

gains in the region’s fastest growing employment clusters. An important strategy for closing the

gap between labor supply and project demand is to capitalize on the region’s existing assets by

providing young people work exposure and training supports.

of 42

The shift to new-economy industries and current competitive pressures is increasing demand in

two particular areas of the labor supply: workers skilled in enabling technology and process

improvement. There is growing demand in fields like cloud computing, mobile software

application, and energy management. According to Dice Holdings, Inc., a job-listing website,

technology job postings in the Detroit area doubled in the last year, the fastest expansion in the

country. Human resources executives in technology fields cite a “talent war,” where they are

having difficulties attracting workers, even recruiting outside the community to meet their

workforce needs (Bloomberg, 2011). This demand comes when many of the region’s major

automotive and other manufacturing firms have learned to do more with less. A strong push

towards quality and efficiency has resulted in even greater reliance on technology-driven

production and process development. For example, much of the growth in the emerging cluster

“business and financial services” (see table) comes from growth in testing laboratories (process

improvement), HR consulting (staffing efficiency), and computer programming and systems

design (systems integration, automation, and efficiency enhancements).

These changes in demand should influence which professions youth consider preparing for and

around which awareness and preparation strategies focus. This includes a range of basic office-

readiness skills to some practical, hands-on experience in certain science, technology, math,

Southeast Michigan’s Fastest Growing Employment Clusters, 2010-2015

Name Jobs 2010 Jobs 2015 Net Change % Change

Business & Financial Services 321,321 354,750 33,429 10

Biomedical/Biotechnical 239,428 262,978 23,550 10

Arts, Entertainment, Recreation, & Visitor Industries 76,303 83,217 6,914 9

Energy (Fossil and Renewable) 126,997 132,030 5,033 4

Information Technology & Communications 100,356 105,080 4,724 5

Defense & Security 84,069 88,635 4,566 5

Education and Knowledge Creation 40,213 44,632 4,419 11

Transportation & Logistics 63,627 67,915 4,288 7

Printing & Publishing 41,572 44,349 2,777 7

Source: Corporation for a Skilled Workforce, 2011

of 42

“In addition to preparing kids for

a skill set, we also need to address

culture (timeliness, adhering to

policy and rules, etc.). Many of

our young people are not exposed

to this culture.”

Source: Detroit employer, March

2011 listening session

and other competencies. The former are particularly important. A recent online survey of

Southeast Michigan businesses confirms that employers who are hiring already are looking in

particular for workers who possess the following characteristics, in order of priority

(Corporation for a Skilled Workforce, 2010):

• Technical skills (very specific to certain types of work)

• Specific experience or industry knowledge

• Work ethic

• Customer service

• Analytical capacity

• Creativity

• Communications and writing (especially proposals)

• Multi-tasking

• Project management

While employers highly value technical skills, and jobs in technology and skill-based fields

(including health care, financial services, etc.) are emerging rapidly, there is a strong sense that

workers can be trained in these areas, as long as they are fundamentally job-ready.

The recent recession resulted in the loss of thousands of low-

skill jobs in manufacturing, natural resources, and several

other industries that are unlikely to be recovered. The jobs

that replace them (such as the technology and skill-intensive

occupations identified above) require that workers be

prepared much differently than they are today. Some experts predict that by 2018, 63 percent

of job openings will require at least some college education, up from 56 percent in 1992. Thus,

it will be necessary to incorporate work exposure with educational attainment, with a view

towards post-secondary attainment.

Bridging The Gap

Many innovative efforts are underway in Detroit to connect youth to work exposure. The Grow

Detroit's Young Talent Campaign has placed youth at many of Detroit's leading businesses

of 42

including DTE, Bank of America, and Compuware. These placements provide youth with high

quality work exposure along with support from program staff.

However, the Grow Detroit's Young Talent Program is able to serve only a small number of

youth. While the program is growing, it employed just 600 young people in 2010. Though other

programs also offer work-related experiences to Detroit youth, far too few are getting the kind

of exposure that helps prepare them for many of the region’s emerging careers or for

additional education that can propel them even further.

Moreover, despite the trends in Southeast Michigan’s emerging economy, it is important to

understand that most youth are not ready to engage immediately in a high-technology, high-

skill setting. In some cases, it takes additional resources to help youth become ready for work.

Thus, when formulating strategies for incorporating youth into the workplace, it is necessary to

meet young people where they are, providing different types of support to youth with different

levels of work readiness and experience.

The supply of youth varies dramatically, ranging in age and educational attainment level.

Younger students tend to be less prepared for work experiences (and hence more resource

intensive to prepare), with those in-school likely more ready than those out of school. High

school graduates or those with equivalent credentials are more ready, but still require a range

of support and career exposure to ensure their long-run success. Those who have work

experience or may be college bound, have even fewer requirements, but still benefit from

work-relevant classroom experiences, mentoring, coaching, career-planning, job pipelines, and

other forms of guidance.

Employers understand the diversity of youth and, as such, have diverse expectations. General

employers—whether for-profit or non-profit, faith-based, government, or others—want youth

to have a sense of the workplace, including "soft skills" (productivity, ethics, teamwork, self-

direction, how to dress, arriving on time, etc.). High growth, high-demand industries demand

soft skills, but may be looking for youth to have knowledge and familiarity with their industry—

at the very least the basic math and science skills that might be applied on the job. For youth

of 42

who fit into neither category (those who are not work ready) intervention must occur at the

most basic level, including preparedness workshops/classes and job exposure through

shadowing and career awareness so they can explore their interests and begin accumulating

knowledge and insight that will help them understand the relevance of more advanced work-

place preparedness efforts, including actual experience.

The figure below illustrates the current situation in Detroit. The two triangles represent

Detroit's youth and employer base. In the youth triangle, the largest cohort represents

individuals who are not "employable." These are youth who do not possess basic work

readiness skills. As one travels up the triangle, the smallest cohort represents youth who are

"ready to work." In other words, they possess the skills that employers demand. In contrast,

the largest section of the employer triangle represents employers’ high demand for youth who

are ready to work, and the smallest section represents youth who are not ready to work. There

is clearly a gap in alignment. Thus, in order to maximize youth employment efforts, a two-

pronged strategy is necessary that will (1) prepare youth for work and (2) provide them with

work exposure.

Youth Participants (Labor Supply) Employers (Labor Demand)

In School / Out of School (16-18)

Somewhat Ready to Work; $$

Older (18-24)

H.S. Grads /

G.E.D. earned;

Ready to Work; $ - $$

Ready 2

Work; $;

Post-2ndary

Educ. Bound

Corporate; not-for-profit &

faith-based organizations;

government; & civic / cultural orgs.

Demand Ready 2 Work Youth

High Growth / Demand

Industries

Demand Ready 2 Work

Youth w/ math/science

knowledge

Work

Experiences

for youth

Not R2W

of 42

While many Detroit and Southeast Michigan programs and initiatives may adhere to this two-

pronged strategy, the region’s future workforce needs are vast, both in terms of numbers and

adequate preparation. The community requires a more comprehensive, collaborative

approach, which emphasizes the leveraging of various resources (human, information, financial,

etc.). This could allow existing efforts to take place on a broader scale, resulting in larger

numbers of youth exposed to the workplace and ready to meet employer needs. To be

successful, such efforts must adequately understand barriers to youth employment and address

them head on.

of 42

“We have to teach youth right, but

they have to live in a world that isn’t

right. They have to make

transparent transitions from the

hood to the corporate world. They

have to know how to do the right

things in both places. We have to

teach them how to transition.

Otherwise there is no balance.”

Source: Detroit employer, March 2011

listening session

III. BARRIERS TO YOUTH EMPLOYMENT IN DETROIT

While the recent economic crisis has exacerbated the youth employment problem, it is not the

only reason for it. There are many reasons for the decline, including growing competition

among groups that traditionally have not sought the same employment opportunities, rising

wage rates, developmental and socio-economic factors, and basic systemic challenges that

undermine youth preparation for emerging industry occupations. It is important to keep these

factors in mind when considering any solution to help better connect youth employment-

related experiences.

Economic, Social, and Developmental Factors

There have been a series of economic challenges, including the technology “bust” that began

early in the decade, followed by the economic meltdown that began in 2007. In general, a

weaker economy has resulted in sluggish employment rates across the board, but youth

employment has been further compromised by the fact that employers now have access to

pools of experienced, more mature adult jobseekers that are willing to work in jobs traditionally

held by youth. Several factors have contributed to this trend.

For example, between 2007-2009, the federal minimum wage rate climbed 40 percent (Sum,

2010). University of California-Irvine's David Neumark has found that a 10 percent increase in

the minimum wage correlates to a nearly 4 percent decrease in employment for black and

Hispanic 16- to 24-year-olds. Presumably, the higher

required wage rate makes young workers too expensive to

hire and increases the attractiveness of alternative

solutions like automation, self-service, placing more

demands on existing staff, and hiring older workers now

enticed by the better wage rate. Changing demographics

also affect youth employment. For example, immigrant

jobseekers are believed to be replacing youth in several

occupations common among immigrants, like service and agriculture. Because youth tend to

of 42

be less attached to the workplace they are easily dislocated by more experienced adult

workers, regardless of their countries of origin (Federal Reserve, 2010).

Socio-economic factors are other relevant impediments to youth employment. In 2007, nearly

half of all Detroit children under age 18 lived below the federal poverty line. These young

people face substantial instability, exposure to violence, and poor nourishment, all of which

hinder youth development and are barriers to employment. Moreover, youth tend to reside

with caregivers who lack education or sustaining jobs themselves. In fact, nearly 60 percent of

Detroit children live in families where no parent has full-time, year-round employment, and 29

percent of Detroit heads of household are high school dropouts. This dynamic means many

youth grow up without role models who possess strong education and work backgrounds and

who understand how to offer the guidance and support needed to propel youth down strong

academic and professional development pathways. Socio-economic challenges also correlate

with:

• High teen birth rates (36 per 1,000 in Detroit), reducing the propensity for graduation

and further reinforcing the cycle of poverty.

• High incarceration rates (23 percent jailing rate for young black men who drop out of

high school, a rate 47 times greater than similar-aged peers with a four-year degree

(Sum, 2009)), making social and workplace reintegration extremely difficult.

Developmental factors may also undermine youth employment, regardless of socio-economic

or other status. Scientists point out that human brains develop well into adulthood, meaning

that youths’ emotional and cognitive abilities are not fully developed. As a result, their

decision-making is often compromised, including when choices related to education and

careers (Bartok, 2011). Further, youth are in the process of active exploration and formation of

their identity. This identity exploration may affect how youth transition into mainstream work

cultures (DeCoursey, et. al, 2007).

of 42

Strategic Alignment and Policy

While it is difficult for communities to shift economic and social dynamics, there are several

areas that are under their control, including many institutional, policy, and other barriers that

get in the way of success. This is true when it comes to implementing programs or organizing

comprehensive, system-wide efforts that support youth employment.

A major challenge in successfully addressing youth employment is an agreed-upon definition of

what it means for a young person to be “work ready.” In some circles, work readiness refers to

proficiency in a set of basic skills, like math, reading, and information finding. Others interpret

it as understanding what it means to work in an office setting, including expectations around

productivity and ethics, problem resolution, team work, self-sufficiency, and cultural

acclimation. To others “work readiness” refers to proficiency in a set of technical skills,

including computer navigation, the operation of certain machinery and equipment, or

performing a very specific set of functions.

Some believe that work-readiness does not correlate to any single one of the above areas but

to all of them together. They believe that work readiness is a journey along the continuum of

basic skills, work-related preparation, and technical skills development, and that each should be

addressed in the course of career readiness. Moreover, they believe that part of career

readiness should entail a belief in young people that there is no end point to their success: they

should be prepared for work in a way that enhances their capacity to continually learn, grow,

and advance on the job.

In conversations with service providers, business leaders, and other Detroit youth employment

stakeholders, there appears little agreement regarding what “work readiness” or “career

readiness” means for young people. Other communities, like Philadelphia, Boston, New York,

and Baltimore, have brought stakeholders together and now share a vision that has shaped

policy decisions, strategic action, and investment around this and other related issues.

Many Detroit stakeholders point out that there is lack of agreement or shared understanding

around effective youth employment strategies, methods, and expectations. National experts

of 42

try to explain this phenomenon, pointing to insufficient evaluation and analysis of effective

programs and performance measurement, which make it hard for stakeholders to readily

identify and agree on a preferred course of action (DeCoursey, Holzer, Sum, 2011).

Detroit stakeholders also identify communication and alignment challenges that prevent

effective sharing around exemplary practices. Among the challenges they cite are:

• Informal hiring practices and loosely structured career pathways that make it hard for

youth to connect to and grow/advance as the result of employment experiences (or for

trainers and other service providers to prepare youth for these opportunities). It is

important for the youth-employment community to better understand employer needs

and to work with employers to develop solutions that better serve the employers

themselves, but also create opportunities for youth.

• A siloed, compartmentalized approach to school and workforce, which translates into

stakeholders not knowing how to interact with or leverage one another effectively.

Exacerbating this dynamic are the facts that school outcomes are not tied to

employment and that federal workforce, education, and other funding streams are

administered from the federal, state, and local levels in uncoordinated ways. As a

result, there are many missed opportunities to prepare youth for the world of work

during school hours. For example, school counseling staff and educators often have little

practical career knowledge (specific jobs, hiring requirements, and promotions) or

understand how best to impart this information to youth. Or, classroom experiences do

not relate to the world of work experiences, so youth fail to see the relevance and

become disenchanted with their school experience.

A 2006 study found that “dropping out of high school is not a sudden act, but a gradual process

of disengagement” (Bridgeland, et. al, 2006). The primary contributor of this disengagement,

according to the authors, is the lack of a clear link between high school and personal goals. A

Southern Regional Education Board report adds, “As occupation-specific programs have

dwindled in high schools, graduation rates have subsequently declined.” The report points out

of 42

that high school graduation rates declined from 75 percent in 1982 to 68 percent in 2002, along

with the availability of these programs.

Even in cases where there is a strong focus on job readiness or linkages between school and

work, there is a tendency to ignore younger and disadvantaged youth who may need more

assistance to succeed. This is particularly the case when it comes to on-the-job expectations

and behaviors—basic work preparedness—that might be taken for granted in some populations

(where professional adult role models may be fairly accessible), but may be woefully

underdeveloped in places where adult unemployment, poverty, and socio-economic barriers

are more pervasive.

When it comes to the offender population—which is comprised disproportionately of young,

black males—and those with disabilities, there are additional challenges. These systems tend

to have fewer connections to mainstream programs and funds. As a result, exemplary practices

that may exist within these systems are not shared, limiting the capacity for innovation.

Programmatic isolation also may translate into youth isolation, making it harder to integrate

young people into mainstream employment and educational settings.

Funding

Public funding for youth employment is woefully inadequate. The public dollars from federal

sources, while useful, do not provide enough work exposure for disadvantaged youth. Under

the federal Workforce Investment Act (WIA), youth services receives roughly $1 billion in

funding per year (just $828 million in 2011), as well as dedicated expenditures for Job Corps

($1.7 billion) and Youth Build ($80 million). Heinrich and Holzer estimate that it would require

$5 billion annually to provide even moderate services to half of the nation’s roughly one million

dropouts each year. This comes at a time when national policymakers have opted to cut youth-

related workforce development funds even further, with an eye for more cuts in the future..

Meanwhile, the education system’s school-to-work policy failed to get reauthorization in 2001

when academic testing became a primary focus. At the federal level, Perkins funding for career

and technical education (CTE) remained fairly flat from 2002-2011, though, adjusting for

of 42

inflation, the program has seen a steady decline, despite growing national need. At the state

and local levels, funding cuts have become the norm, particularly since the economic crisis of

2007 (Career Tech, 2010). Funding cuts in Detroit are anticipated to reduce public youth

employment participants in the city from 7,000 in 2009 to less than 800 in 2011.

While public funds continue to dwindle, the way funds are administered in systemic silos is also

challenging to their efficacy. Several communities have sought innovative ways to address this

problem. The most successful communities have found ways to work beyond the

compartmentalized federal administration of these funds to ensure alignment of resources in

their communities.

Employer and Youth Engagement Factors

When faced with the challenges of starting, growing, and maintaining a successful business,

many employers are hard-pressed to take on the challenges of hiring youth, especially those

suffering from the most severe socio-economic and developmental challenges. In conversations

with Detroit-area employers, there is a sense that there is a lack of infrastructure to help

employers engage successfully with youth employment efforts. This includes programs and

initiatives that help youth prepare for a job setting, including preparedness that addresses

basic, technical, and employability skills, with a strong emphasis on the latter (as well as

screening to help determine where on this spectrum youth fall and how best to intervene).

The infrastructure gap also includes programs and initiatives to help employers prepare

themselves for working with youth, whether through direct employment, mentoring, career

awareness, or other opportunities. National experts considering this lack of infrastructure point

to a disconnection with providers, who do not expect (and hence, have not prepared)

employers to engage youth at a personal level and do not provide enough information or

support to employers to help them meet the needs of youth. This may translate into to

employer training, toolkits, and even support staff/mentors/intermediaries who can help

address a challenge, resolve a conflict, or help a young person connect to needed support and

resources.

of 42

There also is a sense that employer expectations are not necessarily realistic or healthy. For

example, when there is a question of racial, culture, or even generational difference, employers

tend to expect youth to adapt. However, youth are rarely equipped with the tools or capacity

for doing so. When directed with care and in a positive way, these tensions in the youth and

employer relationship can translate into a positive rather than negative experience.

Another concern that many employers hold is that youth are not interested in working. This is

a misconception. In fact, according to some studies, more than 80 percent of youth who are

unemployed would work if they thought they could get a job now (Heinrich and Holzer, 2009).

This group is referred to as the “hidden unemployed,” because they are not accounted for in

official unemployment statistics.

Detroit youth service providers and other national researchers do see a challenge, however, in

the need to ensure that youth are linked to career opportunities that are engaging or

interesting. Without interest, youth tend to disconnect. There is need to assess youth work-

readiness, understand what interests them, and try to align young people with employers who

represent the closest match.

To avoid a sense of job entitlement among youth, the same group of Detroit service providers

recommends not just assigning youth to jobs at random, but to ensure they go through as real

an employment experience as possible, right down to an actual job interview with real potential

employers.

There are a number of reasons for communities to organize and seek ways to overcome some

of the identified challenges to youth employment. From an economic and community

prosperity lens, there is the need to ensure that youth of today are prepared for the jobs of

tomorrow. A rapidly aging adult population means that many highly qualified workers will be

exiting the job system, leaving behind a substantial talent void that will be in need of filling. If

Southeast Michigan’s high-tech turnaround is to remain on track, as many youth as possible

must be ready with credentials (at least a high school diploma with some college preferred and

of 42

a four-year degree most desired) and experience to support employer needs. Providing youth

with career-related exposure and experiences can help fill the gap between employer demand

and youth workforce preparedness.

of 42

IV. BEST PRACTICES IN YOUTH EMPLOYMENT SUPPORTS

Detroit is not alone in facing barriers and grappling with how to effectively engage youth in

meaningful opportunities that emphasize work experience and educational attainment. The

solutions that communities undertake to address this challenge are just about as diverse as the

communities themselves, and so are the outcomes. This section explores some of what

promises or has been proven to work across the nation, ranging from broad-based systems

approaches to programs that target specific youth populations or needs.

National and local experts emphasize that some initiatives might be more effective for certain

youth populations than others, depending on a specific advantage, disadvantage or

circumstance facing the individual or group. They argue that approaches to serving youth

should address a range of needs and provide a range of options, in as coordinated a manner as

possible to maximize resources, knowledge, expertise, and effort.

Systems Based Approach

There are a handful of communities—Philadelphia, Boston, and San Francisco, for example—

that are frequently lauded for their excellent youth employment and educational attainment

efforts. Other communities are home to excellent programs and initiatives, but efforts remain

disconnected and do not add up to a whole beyond the sum of their parts. Still others fall in

between.

One cannot determine whether a community has embraced a strong systems-based approach

to youth employment simply by looking at youth employment figures. While Detroit

unemployment rates are particularly high for youth and the general population, youth

unemployment rates in many heralded cities (along with many others not known for their

youth employment systems) also fall well below national averages. San Diego and San Francisco

are exceptions, but even these well-recognized youth employment systems do only slightly

better than the national average. The following table provide youth employment data for

several leading national communities, including Detroit.

of 42

Youth Employment Rate (%)

Atl

an

ta

Ba

ltim

ore

Bo

sto

n

D.C

.

De

tro

it

L.A

.

N.Y

.C.

Ph

ilad

elp

hia

San

Fra

nci

sco

U.S

.

Population over 16 years 9 11 9 9 22 8 8 12 7 7

Population 16-19 years 33 40 25 31 53 28 32 39 22 23

Population 20-24 years 13 19 13 17 33 12 16 22 11 12

Source: American Community Survey, 2009

Still, many argue that a quality youth-employment system can create more and brighter future

opportunities for youth. In communities with well-developed systems, there are increasingly

strong and innovative programs that leverage exemplary and proven practices believed to yield

positive results for young people.

The nation’s most promising systems have drawn lines in the sand and made it clear that they

are betting on the future, designing their youth employment and educational systems with the

long-run in mind. Based on extensive literature review and consultation with local, state, and

national experts, key characteristics of the nation’s leading youth-employment systems have

been identified, including strong leadership, active engagement, and case management-styled

supports.

Leadership

Leadership is an essential thread in the nation’s most

successful systems-based youth employment and

educational attainment initiatives. There are various

elements of leadership that are important to consider in

the design process and that have proven critical in

various communities explored in the course of our

research. Among these elements are the following:

“A comprehensive youth employment

delivery system pulls together the

resources and funding streams -

public, private, and foundation – in a

strategic way and draws on the

strength of public systems and

community providers to create

supported pathways that provide

youth with the education, skills, and

access to good jobs and successful

careers.”

SOURCE: CLASP: Building a

Comprehensive Youth Employment

System: Examples of Effective Practice

February 2010

of 42

Strong connections to the community’s policy leadership, particularly the mayor’s office. A

strong mayor who buys into the importance of a cohesive youth development strategy can

prove a strong influencer in many respects. Credible leadership at this level that is attuned to

positive outcomes (i.e., not just political outcomes) can help attract meaningful engagement

from other respected community and business leaders; support governance and organizational

structures that maximize scarce resources; and help set and keep focus on a strong youth-

development vision. Strong mayoral support has proven critical to success of efforts in

communities like Boston, Philadelphia, and New York (Pines, Holzer, Thakur, 2011) . Not only is

it important for efforts to possess strong buy-in from the mayor, another important success

factor is having a strong connection to the mayoral cabinet. Communities that have had a

direct line to the mayor, with information and strategic dialogue flowing to and from the office,

have had more success in achieving pivotal policy changes, strong community awareness, and

broad-based buy in and support.

A trusted third-party champion to convene stakeholders, strive toward and hold stakeholders

accountable to a common vision, and maximize community-based resources (e.g., leveraging

each other, eliminating overlap and redundancy, etc.). CLASP, in its examination of five

national communities, found that a trusted third party played an important role in these

communities’ success (CLASP, 2010). Others have reinforced the call for a local intermediary to

act as a neutral convener and facilitator of a systems-based partnership, pointing to the

Philadelphia Youth Network, Boston’s Private Industry Council, and San Francisco’s Taskforce

on Youth (Thakur, 2011).

These entities serve as a sounding board for stakeholders and help convey information and

intelligence to policy, business, and other leaders. They also serve as advocates on behalf of

youth and other stakeholders (and their efforts) and, in many cases, prove important sources of

intelligence gathering that helps keep efforts on the leading edge (e.g., youth employment-

related data, exemplary practices research, etc.). Further, these third-parties play an important

role in keeping partners accountable, both through the establishment and tracking of key

benchmarks and metrics and partner recognition and accolades that keep motivation high.

of 42

A central administrative agent that works to ensure smooth operations (both in terms of quality

and fiscal standing) and collaboration across service providers. It incentivizes and ensures

adherence both to policy and governance concerns, as well as the commonly shared

stakeholder vision. It also helps ensure multiple points of entry to the system for both youth

and employers and helps craft agreements and processes to ensure that needs are being met

by the community of stakeholders. Further, it helps monitor, report on, and ensure adherence

to required and desired outcomes, both for the system and for youth.

It also is important to consider this agent’s role in administering programmatic funds that might

come from different sources. Properly aligned, such resources can support a greater common

end than might be possible if left in silos. For example, both Philadelphia and Boston support

their youth employment and educational attainment efforts through an alignment of public

(e.g., education, workforce) and private (corporate, philanthropic) funding. (Thakur, 2011).

Stakeholder Engagement

No vision, however great, can help increase youth employment and educational attainment

without strong buy-in, expertise, resources, and effort that come from the right mix of

community stakeholders. When it comes to engagement, the most successful efforts have a

strong and comprehensive multi-stakeholder partnership that engages all stakeholders serving

youth, from workforce development and education to human services and juvenile justice. This

partnership aligns to leverage and share resources, but also to provide additional support for

the most vulnerable youth.

Researchers Carolyn Heinrich and Harold Holzer call for a comprehensive stakeholder

partnership, noting the special role that education should play: “Secondary schools, community

colleges, and local employers should be more engaged in local youth ‘systems’ that integrate

educational and employment opportunities for them, with fewer ‘silos’ separating the relevant

youth populations, institutions, and policies.”

Mala Thakur from the National Youth Employment Coalition, in a February 2011 interview,

of 42

emphasized the need to engage such system players as traditional public schools and also

charters. She noted that partners should ensure that educators, not just school administrators,

are at the table and placed importance on the presence of post-secondary schools.

Marion Pines from John’s Hopkins University, in a similar interview, added mental health and

human services experts to the critical list of engaged stakeholders and noted, “Don’t forget

youth themselves.” Meanwhile, Public/Private Ventures, in a 2006 report, explained the

important assets that community-based organizations and the faith-based community bring to

successful community change efforts: possessing an abundance of resources for at-risk youth in

particular, with a strong focus on human services, emotional, social, and other supports.

(Public/Private Ventures, 2002).

Strong employer engagement, including employers from leading and emerging industries and

representing both large and small firms. Employers should be involved in helping design core

initiatives and, ultimately, be sponsors, investors, and customers of these efforts. They also

should serve as champions among their peers, recruiting additional business and other

leadership participation and support. These roles are mentioned fairly ubiquitously, with

special focus paid in Jan DeCoursey and Ada Hill’s Making connections: Engaging employers in

preparing Chicago's youth for the workforce (2007) and in various reports by MDRC, which

explores employer ties to Career Academies (MDRC, 2011).

Case Management

A well-designed, youth assessment and case management approach that works closely with

and engages youth, identifying their needs and meeting them where they are—in other words,

providing support around education, workforce preparedness and basic skill development, and

wrap-around support. Several experts (Curnan, Bartok, Shanks, McGhee, 2011), through

literature and interviews, emphasize the importance of assessing youth, both through written

and personal approaches, to better understand their strengths and challenges and to better

target their needs. A March 2011 focus group of Detroit service providers and faith-based

leaders underscored the need for this understanding, noting that youth preparedness—and

of 42

understanding what it takes, whether basic skill development, workplace preparedness,

emotional or psycho-social support, transportation, or other—is one of the most important

issues facing successful youth development programs. Having a well-designed process and

collection of partners to understand and fill these needs is important to positive youth

outcomes.

Leading System Features

In addition to various components that make up a strong youth employment and educational

attainment system, there are certain features and practices that distinguish these systems from

their counterparts. Examples include the holistic way in which partners address youth and how

they integrate efforts tied to education and employment. Features in some of the exemplary

systems examined include the following:

Differentiated solutions for specific youth cohorts based on certain characteristics—for

example, in school or out of school; aged less than 16, 16-18, and 19-24; race and gender; and

even according to risk type (e.g., low-income, unstable housing, low basic skills, ex-offender,

substance abuser, teen parent). At the same time, there are youth who are work ready and

simply need assistance finding the right fit and support to cultivate their success. Each of these

populations has a unique set of challenges and needs, and strong systems find ways to carefully

coordinate among stakeholders to ensure that each is properly addressed.

According to research from CLASP, both Hartford, Connecticut and Boston, Massachusetts have

“tiered” or cohort approaches to supporting youth.

• Tier I/Level I targets the youngest students, ages 14-15, emphasizing learning and

development. Job readiness training for this group may include communication,

decision-making, team work, conflict resolution, and attitudes/ethics.

• Tier II/Level Two adds more real work and job readiness components to the youth

employment experience. In Boston, this manifests in skill-development in a particular

area, additional professional training, and integrated academic training, with a special

focus on reading and math skills.

of 42

• Tier III in Hartford typically targets high school juniors with some kind of work

experience (perhaps participation in Tiers I and/or II). In Boston, level 3 integrates job

placement with career counseling and additional skill development. (For youth drop-

outs, Boston integrates GED courses and high-school completion curriculum.)

• Tier IV in Connecticut targets those ready for partially subsidized or unsubsidized work

and learning experiences.

Heinrich and Holzer conclude: “Clearly, different programmatic strategies are promising or even

proven for different populations of disadvantaged youth with different circumstances,

suggesting that policy efforts should seek to promote a range of approaches for youth, along

with ongoing evaluation efforts to improve our understanding of what works, and specifically,

which program components, for whom.”

High quality work exposure and career awareness components that provide hands-on and

applied work-place exposure, while preparing youth with fundamental employability skills, such

as workplace productivity, behavior, and ethics. Career awareness around various occupations

in leading and emerging sectors also is key. Marion Pines of John’s Hopkins University, during a

February 2011 interview, strongly emphasized career exploration and experience, particularly

for dropouts. Public/Private Ventures, in their community guide around youth employment,

underscores the need for a variety of experiences that connect school-based learning with

actual work experiences and support for youth as they participate in these programs, but also

as they transition through life, whether focused on school, work, or personal development.

Strong links between schools, exemplified by K-12, community colleges and four-year colleges

collaborating around curriculum and other experiences—including authentic projects, job

shadowing and internships—that excite students about learning, introduce them to the skills

and knowledge they will need for emerging fields, and convince them that they will benefit

(personally, professionally, financially) from learning to do hard things.

of 42

The Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) notes that, when school districts and

community colleges work in partnership, they can design effective transitions and provide

students with greater opportunities to learn about the habits and skills of effective workers.

They also play a critical role in helping students acquire the skills necessary to compete in a

knowledge-based economy. Examples from SREB that schools and postsecondary institutions

can follow to support this preparation include:

• Helping students, by the time they reach middle school, to have a six-year career

development plan covering four years of high school and two years beyond.

• Ensuring the development of a P–20 (pre-school through four-year degree attainment)

system that requires academic and technical studies are taught in the context of careers

and according to college- and career-readiness standards.

• Offering joint grants that encourage community colleges and high schools to collaborate

on curriculum and other academic programs that relate to high-demand, high-skill, high-

wage career fields.

• Fostering a strong professional development system for teachers and possibly other

staff to train them to work with a small group of students and parents through all four

years of high school to set postsecondary and career goals and to pursue a program of

study to achieve those goals.

Strong links between education and workforce, exemplified by strong support from the business

community and active involvement from the workforce system directly in the educational

setting. Here, stakeholders work together to help students understand emerging career

opportunities and how to pursue them through various educational and work experiences.

Workforce and education stakeholders work together to overcome obstacles frequently

encountered in schools (e.g., human and financial resource constraints) to support career

awareness and otherwise engage students in career-contextual education. Examples of this

of 42

collaboration include:

• Education (K-12 and postsecondary), business leaders, and the workforce system

coming together to create theme-based learning pathways in high-demand, high-skill,

high-wage fields that motivate high school students to master knowledge and skills

needed to graduate from high school ready for college and careers.

• Workforce and education systems deliberately connecting with one another. CLASP

provides examples of how these ties play out in Boston:

o Three of the city’s one-stop career centers have identified one staff person in

each center who is devoted to working with young adults to provide information

and support in accessing education and career development opportunities,

including secondary and postsecondary options and skills training programs.

o The Youth Employment Task Force, in partnership with the school system,

created a dropout recovery program in which dropout outreach specialists get a

list of all the youth in the city who have dropped out, find them, and reconnect

them to education or training opportunities.

o The workforce system funds career counselors at all of the schools.

Emphasis on providing high levels of value to employers, understanding that they are a primary

customer of the youth employment system. Employers stand to benefit in many ways from

participation in youth job experiences, including relatively low-cost support for their firm and

involvement in successfully growing and preparing their own future workforce. Youth efforts

that strive to understand and meet employer needs tend to demonstrate stronger employer

engagement, which, in turn, attracts youth who see an immediate connection between the

programs and their current and future job prospects. Philadelphia Youth Network is well

known for its active employer community, and in Boston, firms go so far as to sponsor every

high school in the city, offering support for career fairs, mentoring, internships, job shadowing,

and more. Following are some steps communities have taken to help employers understand

how they benefit from participation in youth employment and educational attainment efforts:

of 42

• Communicate the value proposition effectively—communities that successfully attract

employers have taken careful pains to speak about and design processes and programs

in ways that appeal to employers. Some businesses engage simply because they see the

value in making a community contribution, while others need a clear demonstration of

how their involvement somehow will support their firm’s bottom line. Regarding the

latter, messages that have resonated with employers identify how their involvement

might prepare the future workforce, while others focus on more immediate concerns,

like relieving staffing pressures during summer-vacation season or when more costly,

long-term hiring is not an option.

• Subsidize the experience—Timothy Bartik, senior economist for the W.E. Upjohn

Institute for Employment Research, has written extensively about subsidized work

experience programs, for example, the Minnesota Emergency Employment

Development (MEED) program. From 1983-1989, about 45,000 people enrolled in the

program, which provided a wage subsidy of up to $4 per hour ($10 in 2008 dollars) for

employers to hire new workers, many of whom were low-skilled or among the long-

term unemployed. More than 20,000 of those workers succeeded in staying on with

their employer or finding other permanent, unsubsidized employment. Bartik says that

wage-subsidy programs such as MEED provide valuable work experience for participants

and contribute to a more-trained workforce. They also provide incentives for businesses

to create jobs, and the relative cost of programs like MEED appears to be lower than

other job creation programs. (MEED cost $33,541 per job, compared to the $112,000

under the federal stimulus program or the $145,000 cost of indirectly spurring

employment through tax cuts). Bartik asserts that, within 10 years, MEED actually saved

the Minnesota government money, as it placed workers on payroll and took them off

public service programs. He and other national experts (Pines, Thakur, Holzer)

encourage exploration of a similar approach for youth, though, they acknowledge the

of 42

challenge of tight budgetary times.

• Invite them to design custom programs (if they build it they will come)—Asking directly

for employer input in program design is a very common and effective practice adopted

in each of the communities that CLASP explored in its 2010 program review. In many

cases employers were engaged through sector strategy/industry partnership

approaches, for example, special education and work-experience programs in around

health care and life sciences. Under such scenarios, employers are asked to provide

input into:

o Skill requirement models for entry-level employment and post-secondary

education (and at what stages of youth education and professional development

employers should be involved);

o Designing career pathways and awareness models around targeted industries;

o Integration of work-readiness standards and skills/technical-based knowledge in

school curriculum

o Custom training programs to meet immediate skill needs (especially at the post-

secondary level).

• Make it easy for them to participate and succeed—employer involvement seems most

successful when the following elements are involved, according to various sources:

o Clear communications and expectations with employers—what is being asked of

them and what they should expect in return

o Training and preparation—understanding strategies to help them work better

with youth

o Awareness of services available to support at-risk youth (and how to access or

refer youth to those services)

o A known and trusted intermediary that both employers and students can consult

as needed (potentially youth case mangers with ties also to the employer)

of 42

o Toolkits—information and materials with quick-tips and resources for working

with youth

• Publicly recognize them for their involvement—public recognition not only is emotionally

rewarding for the employer, but it also serves an important role in helping promote the

firm more broadly within the community—a value-add that is friendly to a participating

firms’ bottom line. Ways that some communities are able to recognize or raise

awareness of employers’ involvement include:

o Sponsorships, whether for individual program, training activities, or even

materials. Employers can make a financial contribution and have their branding

affixed to a program or product or otherwise receive recognition for their

support. In Boston, employers go well-beyond sponsoring materials or individual

programs: every high school in the district (and many middle and elementary

schools) has a corporate sponsor that helps support career awareness,

mentoring, career fairs, and other employment-related activities for youth.

o Engagement awards for businesses or individuals who provide particular

leadership and support.

o Spokesperson initiatives that ask businesses to publicly promote the value of

engaging with the youth employment and education attainment system. This

honor benefits the programs themselves (businesses tend to respond best to

other businesses) but it positions certain firms or individuals in a favorable

leadership role, bringing additional value through the public/community

relations process.

• Help prepare and screen youth to promote and demonstrate their level of work

readiness—employers want to ensure that youth are ready to work for them. They find

value in efforts that do an exceptional job of preparing and screening youth to ensure a

strong fit with their firm and that reduce the human resources burden on their end.

Employers could be involved in developing a strong screening process where a system-

of 42

wide approach may be lacking. Many have found that approaches that are as close to

the real world as possible (for example, where youth encounter mock interviews that

prepare them for a real encounter with an employer) are highly valued and yield

positive results.

Several well-functioning systems include many of the above features, but few integrated them

all. By moving the needle in just a few key areas, the Detroit youth employment system could

do much to improve outcomes both for young people and employers. Based on current

resources, political will, and other factors, the community must identify its own approach for

moving towards its vision of a systems-based approach. The next section outlines a possible

approach for Detroit.

of 42

V. RECOMMENDATIONS

Demand for youth may be tempered by barriers to their workforce readiness, but evidence-

based approaches from around the country provide promising opportunities for improvement

of Detroit’s workforce preparation system for young people. Based on the challenges and

opportunities described in this report, the following recommended strategies should be

adopted to enhance the Detroit-area youths’ workforce preparedness in coming years.

1. SYSTEM ORGANIZING – Leading systems from around the country are well-coordinated,

bringing together stakeholders from multiple sectors, including employers, educators, policy-

makers, and others through the support and guidance of a neutral convener. Detroit should

invest in efforts to increase system coordination, including recruitment of a diverse partnership,

mapping of existing assets and a gap analysis, creation of a shared vision, development and

utilization of common employer engagement approaches, and elimination of cross-systems

barriers, such as funding and eligibility challenges.

2. ASSESSMENT TOOLS – The diversity of barriers to youth employment and the need for

customized services rests on understanding where young people are when they enter service

systems and attempt to access community supports. Other communities are working to

develop common assessment tools that help workforce preparation providers understand

youths’ needs and customized services accordingly. Detroit service providers would be well-

served by effective assessment tools, also; the community would be better served by

assessment tools that are common among providers, reducing switching costs between service

providers and increasing the ability of youth and families to compare the efficacy of various

service providers.

3. FEEDBACK MECHANISMS – Information for continuous quality improvement is necessary for

Detroit’s system to know whether its reforms are working. The community should invest in

longitudinal feedback mechanisms, which facilitate access to information about the system and

which facilitate continued system reform, based on empirical data.

of 42

4. CAPACITY BUILDING – The poor state of youth employment in Detroit and nationally will be

changed in the long term with thoughtful system reform, but it remains urgent that service

providers provide more opportunities to today’s youth. For this reason, the community should

invest in capacity building targeted towards existing service providers, which facilitates their

ability to serve more youth, more effectively, today.

5. EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICES – The changing nature of business and employment today have

rendered many workforce preparation services and supports ineffectual, but they remain in

use. The Detroit community should aggressively adopt evidence-based practices, which are

demonstrated to effectively meet the workforce preparation needs of diverse youth

populations.

of 42

VI. CONCLUSIONS

The capacity of Detroit’s young people to participate in tomorrow’s economy is critical for their

success and for the success of the region. Today’s youth employment system is not well aligned

to un-tap this potential, but opportunities for reform exist. Exemplary practices identified in

other communities across the country are a framework that Detroit can model, given the

proper will and recalibration of resources. It is clear that stakeholders are passionate about

youth and making a difference in their futures, and they are prepared to go to great lengths to

do the best they can to make sure this happens. When asked, the vast majority of stakeholders

were open to setting aside old ways of doing business and to begin thinking about and acting

on more collaborative approaches that leverage each others’ resources, know-how, and effort.

Investing in a future that works for young people, employers, and communities throughout

Southeast Michigan will pay off substantial dividends in the future. It is time to begin making

that investment now.

of 42

VII. DESIGN TEAM MEMBERS

Dr. Geneva J. Williams, Convener


163 Madison Ave., 3rd Floor

Detroit, MI 48226

[email protected]

Edward S. Egnatios, Chair of Detroit Youth

Employment Consortium

Skillman Foundation

100 Talon Center Suite #100

Detroit, MI 48207

[email protected]

Don Jones, Senior Consultant

New Economy Initiative for Southeast MI

Community Foundation for Southeast MI

333 W. Fort Street, Suite 2010

Detroit, MI 48226-3134

[email protected]

Lisa Katz, Senior Policy Associate


1100 Victors Way Suite 10

Ann Arbor, MI 48108

[email protected]

John King, WDB Consultant

Detroit Workforce Development Board

707 W. Milwaukee

Detroit, MI 48202

[email protected]

[email protected]

Jeannine LaPrad

President & CEO


1100 Victors Way, Suite 10

Ann Arbor, MI 48108

[email protected]

Martha N. Welsh, Consultant

New Economy Initiative for Southeast MI

Community Foundation for Southeast MI

333 W. Fort Street, Suite 2010

Detroit, MI 48226-3134

[email protected]

Trina R. Shanks, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor

University of Michigan

School of Social Work

1080 S. University

Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1106

[email protected]

Dierk Hall, Interim President


163 Madison Ave., 3rd Floor

Detroit, MI 48226

Office: 313-963-9815

Fax: 313-963-9723

[email protected]

CITY CONNECT DETROIT SUPPORT TEAM

Nikita Buckhoy

[email protected]

David Cherry

[email protected]

Marissa Craighead

[email protected]

Tanjia Wilkerson

[email protected]

Paul Witt

[email protected]

of 42

VIII. BIBLIOGRAPHY

American Community Survey. 2005-2009 Detroit Employment and Educational Attainment.

2011.

Bartik, Timothy J. Why Michigan (and Other States) Should Invest in Pre-School. W. E. Upjohn

Institute. 2011.

Baldry, Shawn. Positive Support: Mentoring and Depression Among High-Risk Youth.

Public/Private Ventures. July 2006.

Bartik, Timothy (W. E. Upjohn). Speech to Project for Pride in Living. 2009. http://www.ppl-

inc.org/page/highlights-dr-timothy-bartiks-speech.

Bellotti, Jeanne; Rosenberg, Linda; et al. Reinvesting in America’s Youth: Lessons from the 2009

Recovery Act Summer Youth Employment Initiative. Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. February

26, 2010.

Bettinger, Eric P. et al. Increasing Postsecondary Enrollment among Low-Income Families: A

Project to Improve Access to College Information and Financial Aid THE FAFSA H&R BLOCK

EXPERIMENT. Harvard University. January 2009.

Bloom, Dan et al. Building a Learning Agenda Around Disconnected Youth. MDRC. March 2010.

Bloom, Dan. Haskins, Ron. Helping High School Dropouts Improve Their Prospects. Future of

Children Policy Brief. Brookings/MDRC. Spring 2010.

Bornstein, David. “Training Youths in the Way of the Workforce.” New York Times. January 24,

2011.

Bottoms, Gene & Young, Marna. Lost in Transition: Building a Better Path from School to College

and Careers. Southern Regional Education Board. 2008.

Bozell, Maureen; Goldberg, Melissa. Employers, Low-Income Young Adults, and Postsecondary

Credentials – A Practical Typology for Business Leaders, Education & Community Leaders.

Workforce Strategy Center. October 2009.

Carnevale, Anthony P. et al. Help Wanted: Projects of Job and Education Requirements through

2018. Georgetown University Center for Education and the Workforce. June 2010.

CLASP. Building a Comprehensive Youth Employment Delivery System—Examples of Effective

Practice. February 2010.

of 42

Clymber, Edwards, Ponce, Wyckoff. Supporting Youth Employment: A Guide for Community

Groups. Public/Private Ventures. November 2002.

Corporation for a Skilled Workforce. Employer Survey and Executive Interview Results – Central

Woodward/North End Collaborative Neighborhood Jobs Pipeline Strategic Plan. December

2010.

Curnan, Susan. Hahn, Andrew. Innovating Under Pressure – The Story of the 2009 Recovery Act

Summer Youth Employment Initiative Chicago, Detroit, Indianapolis & Marion County, Phoenix

& Maricopa County. Center for Youth and Communities Heller School for Public Policy and

Management, Brandeis University. June 2010.

DeCoursey, Jan; Skyles, Ada. Making Connections: Engaging Employers in Preparing Chicago’s

Youth for the Workforce. Chapin Hall Working Paper. Chapin Hall Center for Children at the

University of Chicago. 2007.

Fryer, Roland G. Financial Incentives and Student Achievement: Evidence from Randomized

Trials. Harvard University EdLabs and NBER. April 8, 2010.

Hahn A, Leavitt T. Aaron, P. Evaluation of the Quantum Opportunities Program: Did the program

work? Waltham, MA: Brandeis University, Heller Graduate School. 1994.

Hastings, Sarah. Putting Youth to Work Series, Examples of Effective Strategies in Distressed

Communities – Boston, MA. CLASP. July 2009.

Heinrich, Carolyn (University of Wisconsin-Madison) and Holzer, Harry (Georgetown Public

Policy Institute). Improving Education and Employment for Disadvantaged Young Men: Proven

and Promising Strategies. September 2009.

Holzer, Harry J. Collateral Cost: The Effects of Incarceration on the Employment and Earnings of

Young Workers. Discussion Paper Series. Institute for the Study of Labor. IZA DP No. 3118.

October 2007.

Jenkins, Davis et al. Educational Outcomes of I-BEST, Washington State Community and

Technical College System’s Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training Program:

Findings from a Multivariate Analysis. Community College Research Center. Community College

Research Center Working Paper #16. May 2009.

Kemple, James. Career Academies: Impacts on Labor Market Outcomes and Educational

Attainment. MDRC. March 2004. http://www.mdrc.org/publications/366/full.pdf.

MDRC. Project website—Career Academies.

http://www.mdrc.org/project_publications_29_1.html.

of 42

Miller, Cynthia. Porter, Kristin. Barriers to Employment for Out-of-School Youth: Evidence from a

Sample of Recent CET Applicants. MDRC working paper. September 2005.

National Collaboration for Youth. Toward a Brighter Future: An Essential Agenda for America’s

Young People.

Public Impact. Disconnected Youth and Multiple Pathways to Graduation (prepared for the

Annie E. Casey Foundation), December 2008.

Public/Private Ventures. Youth Development: Issues, Challenges, and Directions.

Roder, Anne. Elliot, Mark. A Promising Start: Year Up’s Initial Impacts on Low-Income Young

Adults’ Careers. Economic Mobility Corporation. April 2011.

http://www.economicmobilitycorp.org/uploads/A%20Promising%20Start.pdf.

Richburg-Hayes, Thomas Brock, et al. MDRC. Opening Doors: Effects of a Performance-Based

Scholarship Program for Low-Income Parents. January 2009.

Saltsman, Michael. “Jobless Michigan Teens Can Thank The Minimum Wage Hike.” Detroit

News. 7/21/2010.

Scrivener, Susan. Coghlan, Erin. Opening Doors to Student Success: A Synthesis of Findings From

an Evaluation at Six Community Colleges. MDRC. March 2011.

Scrivener, Susan. Bloom, Dan. LeBlanc, Allen. Two-Year Effects of a Freshman Learning

Community Program at Kingsborough Community College. MDRC. March 2008.

Shanks, Trina; McGhee, Kristin. Detroit Summer Youth Employment Program: Results of

Employer and Youth Employee Exit Surveys. University of Michigan – School of Social Work –

Good Neighborhoods Technical Assistance Center. February 2010.

Sturgis, Chris; Rath, Bob; et al. Clearing the Path – Creating Innovation Space for Serving Over-

Age, Under-Credited Students in Competency-Based Pathways. MetisNet. December 2010.

Sum, Andrew; Khatiwada, Iswar; et al. Dire Straits in the Nation’s Teen Labor Market: The

Outlook for the Summer 2010 Teen Job Market and the Case for A Comprehensive Youth Jobs

Creation Strategy. Prepared for the C.S. Mott Foundation by the Center for Labor Market

Studies, Northeast University. April 2010.

Sum Andrew; Iswar Khatiwada, et al Deteriorating Employment Rates and Incomes Threaten the

Futures of Young Workers and Young Families; Black Young People and Young Families Fare the

Worst, Prepared for the Children's Defense Fund, Washington DC, December 2010.

of 42

Sum, Andrew; Khatiwada, Iswar; et al. Joblessness and Jailing for High School Dropouts and the

High Cost for Taxpayers. Center for Labor Market Studies, Northeast University. October 2009.

Tsoi-A- Fatt, Rhonda. Keeping Youth Connected – Focus on Detroit. CLASP. July 2009.

Youth Development Institute. Promising Practices in Working with Young Adults. Summary of

Programs Serving Young Adult Learners.

Vandal, Bruce. Revving The Education Engine – Effectively Aligning Education, Workforce, and

Economic Development Policy. Knowledgeworks Foundation. 2009.

Expert Interviews

Timothy J. Bartik, Senior Economist, W. E. Upjohn Institute

Charles Betsey, Professor Department of Economics, Howard University

Charles Brown, Professor of Economics, College of Literature, Science, and the Arts and

Research Professor, Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research

Cathy Cohen, Principle investigator, Black Youth Project David and Mary Winton Green

Professor of Political Science and the College at the University of Chicago.

Susan Curnan, Associate Professor and Director, Center for Youth and Communities, The Heller

School for Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University

Sandra Danziger, Professor of Social Work, School of Social Work; Research Professor, Gerald R.

Ford School of Public Policy

Sheldon H. Danziger, Henry J. Meyer Distinguished University Professor of Public Policy, Gerald

R. Ford School of Public Policy; Research Professor, Population Studies Center University of

Michigan Ford School of Public Policy Studies

Karl Gregory,Ph. D. ,Distinguished Professor Emeritus, Oakland University and KDG &

Associates, Management & Economic Consulting

Harry Holzer, Professor, Georgetown University Public Policy Institute

Marion Pines, Senior Fellow, Youth and Family Policy, Education Reform and Welfare Reform

Policy at Johns Hopkins University Institute for Policy Studies

Andrew Sum, Director of Center for Labor Market Studies (CLMS), Northeastern University

Mala Thakur, Executive Director, National Youth Employment Coalition

of 42

Focus Group Discussions

Detroit Youth Employment Consortium

Business panel

Faith-based and community leaders

Detroit policymakers

investing in a future that works: preparing detroit's...

Documents